Brown v. Bowers

Supreme Court of Georgia

Brown v. Bowers

464 S.E.2d 820, 266 Ga. 136, 96 Fulton County D. Rep. 169, 1996 Ga. LEXIS 1

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedJanuary 8, 1996

DocketS95A1372

StatusPublished

This text of 464 S.E.2d 820 (Brown v. Bowers) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Brown v. Bowers, 464 S.E.2d 820, 266 Ga. 136, 96 Fulton County D. Rep. 169, 1996 Ga. LEXIS 1 (Ga. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

Fletcher, Presiding Justice.

Walter Brown appeals the denial of the filing of his Petition for Writ of Mandamus. Because mandamus is not available where another remedy exists and Brown had the opportunity to raise these claims in a prior action, we affirm.

Brown is incarcerated and previously brought a habeas petition challenging his conviction and sentence. Michael Bowers and Richard Warren represented the Warden in opposing the habeas petition. Brown now contends that Bowers and Warren acted fraudulently in connection with the habeas action. These contentions could and should have been raised in Brown’s appeal of the denial of his habeas petition. Because Brown had another adequate legal remedy, mandamus is unavailable.¹ The availability of an adequate legal remedy appeared on the face of Brown’s petition and therefore, the trial court did not err in denying its filing.²

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Fletcher, Presiding Justice.

Walter Brown appeals the denial of the filing of his Petition for Writ of Mandamus. Because mandamus is not available where another remedy exists and Brown had the opportunity to raise these claims in a prior action, we affirm.

Brown is incarcerated and previously brought a habeas petition challenging his conviction and sentence. Michael Bowers and Richard Warren represented the Warden in opposing the habeas petition. Brown now contends that Bowers and Warren acted fraudulently in connection with the habeas action. These contentions could and should have been raised in Brown’s appeal of the denial of his habeas petition. Because Brown had another adequate legal remedy, mandamus is unavailable.¹ The availability of an adequate legal remedy appeared on the face of Brown’s petition and therefore, the trial court did not err in denying its filing.²

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

464 S.E.2d 820, 266 Ga. 136, 96 Fulton County D. Rep. 169, 1996 Ga. LEXIS 1, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brown-v-bowers-ga-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack